John is not misquoting the Old Testament, he is quoting Jesus who takes a real physical miracle of healing in the wilderness and draws from it its spiritual reality, "believe and live" just as He applied the sacrificial lamb motif to Himself. Later in his Gospel John will say that "this is written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life through His name". That the serpant healing was real is attested to some one thousand years later when Hezekiah in his revival destroys the bronze serpant because the people had come to worship it (2 Kings 18:4).
As to the "son of man" in Hebrew, the writer of Psalms 80:17-18 introduces one as seated on the right hand of God but the concept is brought into focus in the apocalyptic writings of Daniel 7 and the Similitudes of Eth. Enoch (chpts. 31-71). Jesus is just applying the apocalyptic messaniac title to Himself.
There is a writing (Urk. IV.1) from the period of Amenophis II, a Pharoah during the time the Hebrews were in Egypt (1450B.C.) that refers to the hapiru in its Egyptian form 'prw being present in Egypt. These hapiru were a nomadic tribe. Abraham was referred to as a Hebrew hapiru. Scholars like Albright, Bright, Noth, Pritchard and von Rad all attest to the accuracy of the Egyptian bondage, each from different theological positions.
More contradictions. Mark (16:16) and John (3:2, 18, 36) claim it's through faith. Matthew (12:37), John (!) (5:29) through words and deeds.
That the serpent healing was real is attested to some one thousand years later when Hezekiah in his revival destroys the bronze serpent because the people had come to worship it (2 Kings 18:4)
A thousand years? The Torah was composed c. 6th century BC.
As to the "son of man" in Hebrew, the writer of Psalms 80:17
How about
"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind" [Num 23:19] ?
How is it that when it suits us it means Jesus and at other times it means something else?
John is all over the place. This is one reason I believe the scribes who copied the original must have had a field day with it, adding and changing things around. It's very possible that many of John's verse are not even his. Otherwise, how can one explain contradictions by the same author (one chapter apart!): to wit John 3: 2 clearly suggests that Jesus baptized others. John 4:2 with equal clarity says that "Jesus baptized not"?
There is a writing (Urk. IV.1) from the period of Amenophis II, a Pharoah during the time the Hebrews were in Egypt (1450B.C.)
You mean Hyskos, not Hebrews?
These hapiru were a nomadic tribe. Abraham was referred to as a Hebrew hapiru.
By whom?
Scholars like Albright, Bright, Noth, Pritchard and von Rad all attest to the accuracy of the Egyptian bondage, each from different theological positions.
The habiru/hapiru included no specific ethnic group, no specific common language or beliefs, and represented somewhat lawless groups of migrant (nomadic) individuals, from vagrants to mercinaries. or basically lowlifes. The whole idea that the Hebrews escaped Egypt in the 15th century is senseless since Egypt at that time included not only the Sinai but Canaan and Syria.